VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

173 of PB No. 2] If the Appellant was engaged in construction of the building and selling the same, they would not have taken the task of applying for operating and maintaining the I-T Park and getting the requisite approvals. As a Trader, the Appellant would have only intended to construct and sell the property with the intention

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). 5.3. I have gone through the said judgement quoted by the AO. In that case the seller of original property did not buy in joint name but in the sole name of his son and his name was not mentioned as a owner in the new property. Thus the facts of the case are totally distinguishable

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). 5.3. I have gone through the said judgement quoted by the AO. In that case the seller of original property did not buy in joint name but in the sole name of his son and his name was not mentioned as a owner in the new property. Thus the facts of the case are totally distinguishable

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTIR,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment for AY 2016- 17 on 26.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 15.12.2019 on total income of Rs.2,15,53,035/- and Rs.96,15,704/- u/s 143(3) of the Act including therein the impugned addition of Rs.52,83,945/-, respectively. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment for AY 2016- 17 on 26.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 15.12.2019 on total income of Rs.2,15,53,035/- and Rs.96,15,704/- u/s 143(3) of the Act including therein the impugned addition of Rs.52,83,945/-, respectively. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

ALLAN EMANUEL FERNANDES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

property should be purchased in the name of the assessee alone and the word “assessee”. The provisions of section 54F being beneficial provision enacted for encouraging investment in residential houses and should be liberally interpreted. The ld. AR to further support his contentions placed reliance on the following decisions:- i) CIT Vs. V. Natarajan, reported as 287 ITR 271 (Madras

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

173 (Bom.-HC). Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeals. Revenue is not in appeals before us. 15. Thus, the Revenue accepted the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the issue relating to cash credit addition and grant of deduction on Rs.1,40,98,445/-. There are no appeals by the Revenue in the assessment years

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

173 (Bom.-HC). Thus, the CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeals. Revenue is not in appeals before us. 15. Thus, the Revenue accepted the relief granted by the CIT(A) on the issue relating to cash credit addition and grant of deduction on Rs.1,40,98,445/-. There are no appeals by the Revenue in the assessment years

BHARAT DEWAKINANDAN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE., PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property which is vacant throughout the year shall be calculated as per the provisions of section 23(1)(a) of the Act and further held non-applicability of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. In view of the same, held orders in the case of Shri Vikas Keshav Garud in ITA No. 747/PUN/2014 and in the case of Sonu

RAMDAS SITARAM PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

house and secondly, the new residential property was purchased before one year prior to the sale of original 5 asset. Admittedly, the sale consideration was paid prior to the one year before the sale of original asset. There is no bar under law to claim deduction simultaneously u/s,.54 and u/s.54F in respect of the same asset. The crucial fact

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

section 45: 4.2.1 On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the deduction is available only when the assessee has either constructed or purchased new property being a residential house within the prescribed time limit i.e. one year before or two/three years after as the case may be, from the date of transfer of the original

VARUN SUNOY SARASWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Varun Sunoy Saraswat, A/901, Crest Avenue, Behind Mahendra Showroom, Mumba Highway, Baner, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Bqkps1546L Vs.

173 Taxman 311 (Bom), the denial of deduction under section 54F of the Act was on account of the fact that bungalow was constructed in the name of adopted son. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard placed reliance on the decision of Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Chandrakant S. Choksi HUF Vs. ACIT (2015) 53 taxmann.com

SAKHARAM BHONDVE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD -9 (1),, PUNE

property for the same agreed consideration as per Development Agreement & registered the same dated 21.04.2008. The assessee had 50% share and accordingly, he received 50% of the sale consideration being Rs.48 lacs. This was adopted as the gross sale consideration by the Assessing Officer as well as the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that the transfer of land took

BHIMA DADA KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

173 Taxman 311 (BOM). The distinguishing factor in this case with that judgment is that the said judgment is in the context of Section 54F which applies to purchase of New House Property

BALU VITTHAL KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

173 Taxman 311 (BOM). The distinguishing factor in this case with that judgment is that the said judgment is in the context of Section 54F which applies to purchase of New House Property

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

173 Taxman 458 (SC)  Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad Bench) (ITA No.2818/Ahd/2017) Findings and Analysis : 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the assessment order it is observed that the Assessing Officer(AO) has not discussed anything in the assessment order, he has merely accepted the returned income. 5.1 We have also

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES, PUNE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is allowed FOR STATISTCIAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 480/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pride Purple Properties, Pride House, 5Th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 Pan: Aaifp0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; As Against First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-11, [‘Cit(A)’] Dt. 25/01/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’], For Assessment Year [‘Ay’] 2013-14, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeal With The Following Grounds; “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit (A) -11, Pune In The Case Is Opposed To Establish Law & The Judicial Pronouncement.

House, 5th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 PAN: AAIFP0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 12/04/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) 9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. DIT [IT Appeal No. 27 (Asr.) of 2015] 8 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR had relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone through the record. Admittedly, the assessee paid the consideration through cheques

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

house property and business, capital gains or others. Therefore, consequential deductions u/s.70, 71 and 72 of the Act are not available and relied on the following decisions in this regard (1) Fakir Mohamed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT 247 ITR 290 (Guj.), (2) Liberty Plywoods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 29 taxmann.com 268 (ITAT Chd.), (3) ITO Vs. Dulari Digital Photo Services